Speed camera sceptics endanger us all

Iwannahurl

In order to claim that excessive speed isn't dangerous, the critics pretty much have to deny basic science. While Newton's laws of motion have been shown to be remarkably consistent and accurate since 1687, speed conspiracy theorists simply shrug off ideas such as force being the product of mass multiplied by acceleration; never mind that it was the very knowledge of such concepts that helped lead to the invention of automobiles in the first place. You can't have your physics and eat it too.

But in addition to those denying the basic science, there are even more people out there who fervently believe that speed cameras are all about revenue raising – a golden egg that bumps up the "coffers" of "greedy governments". Such people will write endless letters to the paper, buy "ghost plates" to obscure their registration number or GPS apps that alert them to speed camera hotspots – even change their vote – rather than just simply drive within the speed limit. Really, it's not that hard – you just match the big number on the sign to the little number on your speedo.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/speed-camera-sceptics-endanger-us-all-20101122-183ot.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tQ_9OD8vc8

Cookie_Monster

how are Aussies endangering us all by speeding?

Atomic Pineapple

**Sighs**

KamiKazi

Tragedy

Speed Camera sceptics do not deny the laws of physics, they deny that speed is the main contributary factor to accidents and that by focusing on speeding rather than on what causes accidents, they are focusing on the effect rather than the cause.

Iwannahurl

Please read the SMH piece carefully and in full.

That's why I posted two paragraphs and supplied the link.

Here it is again:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/speed-camera-sceptics-endanger-us-all-20101122-183ot.html

Atomic Pineapple

Iwannahurl

Del2005

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In order to claim that excessive speed isn't dangerous,

Of course excessive speed is dangerous I don't think any sane person would disagree. But who says what is the excessive speed for the road, when we have boreens with 80km/h limits and dual carriage ways with 60km/h limits?

Someone driving at 70km/h on a 60km/h dual carriage way is exceeding the speed limit, but not driving at excessive speed. Someone driving at 70km/h on an 80km/h boreen isn't exceeding the limit, but is driving at an excessive speed.

Yet who is going to be fined by a speed camera?

cnocbui

Only 5% of drivers who crash were breaking the speed limit

By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
MOTORING groups have questioned the value of speed cameras after police figures revealed that only one in 20 collisions last year was caused by a driver breaking the speed limit. The most common cause of accidents was failing to look properly, a factor in 32 per cent of crashes, followed by failing to judge another vehicle’s speed (18 per cent) and driving carelessly or recklessly (16 per cent). The figures, published by the Department for Transport, contradicted claims by speed camera supporters that speed is a factor in one third of collisions.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article654412.ece

Comprehensive statistics compiled by the UK Police do not support the polemic you are trying to peddle/instigate.

It's enough to make one want to hurl.

Iwannahurl

draffodx wrote: »

Ah, now I see the explanation for the appearance of such subtle though scintillating wit.

Draffodx is one of the very sceptics mentioned in the SMH article.

Take this wise counsel from him as an example (another thread):

"...do you even drive?

I am not trying to say speeding is not a bad thing by any means, my opinion though is that these speed cameras are not an effective way to deal with actual speeders that are dangerous and instead will punish many many people who are not a danger on the roads, it is in effect another way to punish the many for the behavior of a few." [emphasis added]

Iwannahurl

cnocbui wrote: »

It's enough to make one want to hurl.

Wooow, never thought of that one...

Matt Simis

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Wooow, never thought of that one...

Why are you here?

Iwannahurl

Matt Simis wrote: »

Why are you here?

Is that an existential question, or have you just not read my original post, read the linked article, and viewed the linked video?

That's what they're there for. Considered appraisal and (one fervently hopes) intelligent response.

L1011

spending masses of attention to "match the big number on the sign to the little number on your speedo" rather than paying attention to the road, other road users, conditions and risks is significantly more dangerous than appraising what a safe speed to do is based on the road, other road users, conditions and risks. Particularly in Ireland with its illogical speed limits.

Generally posting links to articles and videos without providing any analysis of your own is seen as pure trolling.

Voodoomelon

I can't find the pie chart on the RSA's site (for 2007 I think), but speeding was cited as causing 8% of accidents on our roads.

I think the speed camera cash could be better spent elsewhere.

Iwannahurl

MYOB wrote: »

spending masses of attention to "match the big number on the sign to the little number on your speedo" rather than paying attention to the road, other road users, conditions and risks is significantly more dangerous than appraising what a safe speed to do is based on the road, other road users, conditions and risks. Particularly in Ireland with its illogical speed limits.

Generally posting links to articles and videos without providing any analysis of your own is seen as pure trolling.

"Significantly more dangerous". Can you cite the peer-reviewed evidence for that assertion please? Chapter and verse, as they don't really say in the research community.

"Is seen as pure trolling". Really? By whom?

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

"Significantly more dangerous". Can you cite the peer-reviewed evidence for that assertion please? Chapter and verse, as they don't really say in the research community.

Research isn't needed to show that concentrating on something internal to your car is more dangerous than concentrating on road conditions.

Amazingly, some of us here are actual qualified advanced drivers rather than people who rely on foreign newspapers to tell them what to believe.

Concentrating heavily on your speedometer is just as distracting as twiddling with your radio or any other action which takes your eyes off the road, and the NHTSA has an absolute rake of research on distracted driving. Which you can find yourself, as I'm not indulging your link-love.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

"Is seen as pure trolling". Really? By whom?

By everyone here.

Matt Simis

Iwannahurl wrote: »

"Is seen as pure trolling". Really? By whom?

Everyone, obviously.
Have you never used a forum, spoke to a human before? Maybe go off and ponder how you might better deliver your points in the future as even if had a valid issue, you have alienated everyone here.

alias no.9

Speed cameras measure a breach of a posted limit in a very small proximity to their location. Speeds below the posted limit can be dangerous and speeds above the posted limit can be perfectly safe, dependent on the appropriateness of the limit and the prevailing conditions.
Speed cameras do nothing outside their immediate proximity and nothing for crossing a continuous white line, nothing for tailgating, nothing for rubbernecking, nothing for breaking a red light, nothing for driving a defective vehicle, or infact does nothing much for road safety at all. I'd much rather see cops on the roads enforcing the full gamut of road traffic laws.

Iwannahurl

MYOB wrote: »

Research isn't needed to show that concentrating on something internal to your car is more dangerous than concentrating on road conditions.

So far, so exactly as identified in the SMH article. No surprise there.

These sceptics most frequently rely on anecdotal evidence, online polls by interest groups and conclusions inferred from other related data to feed the public misinformation about speeding. When it comes to producing any properly designed, peer-reviewed research by independent bodies to support their claims, they generally fall mysteriously quiet. On the other hand, an increasing amount of research designed to test the efficacy of speed cameras is proving their benefits.

The University of Queensland, for example, released research last month that reviewed 35 existing studies and concluded that speed cameras (both fixed and mobile) reduced the average speed of drivers and lessened the chance of serious injury crashes and deaths in both urban and rural areas.

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So far, so exactly as identified in the SMH article. No surprise there.

These sceptics most frequently rely on anecdotal evidence, online polls by interest groups and conclusions inferred from other related data to feed the public misinformation about speeding. When it comes to producing any properly designed, peer-reviewed research by independent bodies to support their claims, they generally fall mysteriously quiet. On the other hand, an increasing amount of research designed to test the efficacy of speed cameras is proving their benefits.

The University of Queensland, for example, released research last month that reviewed 35 existing studies and concluded that speed cameras (both fixed and mobile) reduced the average speed of drivers and lessened the chance of serious injury crashes and deaths in both urban and rural areas.

And the troll in this case solely relies on one newspaper article :rolleyes:

StereoLove

So the Gardaí are wrong? Speed cameras aren't there for our safety they are there to endanger us?

*Sigh*

Iwannahurl

MYOB wrote: »

...in this case solely relies on one newspaper article :rolleyes:

No, actually. Please read the article in question in order that you may respond to the points raised in an intelligent fashion.

The article is not peer-reviewed evidence. It is an opinion piece in a newspaper which discusses uses and abuses of such evidence. That is its point. The existence of such a newspaper article doesn't negate or replace such evidence, it invites discussion about it.

LookBehindYou

http://www.mikewaite.co.uk/uploads/media/CaseAgainstSpeedCameras.pdf

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

No, actually. Please read the article in question in order that you may respond to the points raised in an intelligent fashion.

The article is not peer-reviewed evidence. It is an opinion piece in a newspaper which discusses uses and abuses of such evidence. That is its point. The existence of such a newspaper article doesn't negate or replace such evidence, it invites discussion about it.

I've read the article. It is single sided, poorly and biasedly researched bull****.

You ask for "evidence" when someone challenges what the article says yet you provide nothing yourself other than the article.

Speed cameras are long term ineffective. They are being removed wholesale across the UK due to their ineffectiveness. The system developed for them in Ireland claims to target accident black spots but doesn't. The Queensland research the article hints to (but does not link to) does not appear to provide any weighting for length of installation of cameras and so on.

The positioning of cameras in Ireland almost solely targets areas with inappropriately low speed limits while ignoring areas with inappropriately high speed limits.

The preaching which goes on from people like those who wrote the article assumes that not only are the speed limits correct, but that going even 1km/h above them brings risk upon everyone else on the road in question. This is poorly (or un) researched bull****, driven by emotion rather than facts. And that article delves deep in to emotion.

The preachers usually ignore the fact that our speed limits have altered wildly in recent years. Somehow overnight last year about 400km of road suddently became 'safe' for an extra 20km/h because someone changed the signs, and so on.

Iwannahurl

alias no.9 wrote: »

Speed cameras measure a breach of a posted limit in a very small proximity to their location. Speeds below the posted limit can be dangerous and speeds above the posted limit can be perfectly safe, dependent on the appropriateness of the limit and the prevailing conditions.
Speed cameras do nothing outside their immediate proximity and nothing for crossing a continuous white line, nothing for tailgating, nothing for rubbernecking, nothing for breaking a red light, nothing for driving a defective vehicle, or infact does nothing much for road safety at all. I'd much rather see cops on the roads enforcing the full gamut of road traffic laws.

No reason there for not having speed/safety cameras. Such specious argument is a fallacy, known as "what aboutery".

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-to-spot-a-lame-lame-argument-1667373.html

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

No reason there for not having speed/safety cameras. Such specious argument is a fallacy, known as "what aboutery".

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-to-spot-a-lame-lame-argument-1667373.html

Links, yet again... trolltastic.

If speed cameras are sold to us as being there to save lives, and are positioned in such a manner as to not save lives, there is every reason to argue against them seeing as there are massive costs involved in introducing and manning them. That is not a "lame argument" unless you're on the side being slapped.

Voodoomelon

Iwannahurl wrote: »

No reason there for not having speed/safety cameras.

How about a monumental waste of funding on something that has minimal effect? Who is this guy?

Iwannahurl

I suppose linking to a Cochrane Review is "trolltastic" as well?

http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004607.html

Twenty eight studies measured the effect on crashes. All 28 studies found a lower number of crashes in the speed camera areas after implementation of the program. In the vicinity of camera sites, the reductions ranged from 8% to 49% for all crashes, with reductions for most studies in the 14% to 25% range. For injury crashes the decrease ranged between 8% to 50% and for crashes resulting in fatalities or serious injuries the reductions were in the range of 11% to 44%. Effects over wider areas showed reductions for all crashes ranging from 9% to 35%, with most studies reporting reductions in the 11% to to 27% range. For crashes resulting in death or serious injury reductions ranged from 17% to 58%, with most studies reporting this result in the 30% to 40% reduction range. The studies of longer duration showed that these positive trends were either maintained or improved with time.

Iwannahurl

MYOB wrote: »

Links, yet again... trolltastic.

And then there's Brake's page of links to research supporting the use of speed/safety cameras:

http://www.brake.org.uk/evidence-on-the-effectiveness-of-speed-cameras

Of course Brake are not just trolls, they're international road safety promotion trolls. The worst kind, perhaps, according to "everyone here"?

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I suppose linking to a Cochrane Review is "trolltastic" as well?

http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004607.html

Twenty eight studies measured the effect on crashes. All 28 studies found a lower number of crashes in the speed camera areas after implementation of the program. In the vicinity of camera sites, the reductions ranged from 8% to 49% for all crashes, with reductions for most studies in the 14% to 25% range. For injury crashes the decrease ranged between 8% to 50% and for crashes resulting in fatalities or serious injuries the reductions were in the range of 11% to 44%. Effects over wider areas showed reductions for all crashes ranging from 9% to 35%, with most studies reporting reductions in the 11% to to 27% range. For crashes resulting in death or serious injury reductions ranged from 17% to 58%, with most studies reporting this result in the 30% to 40% reduction range. The studies of longer duration showed that these positive trends were either maintained or improved with time.

Yes, because you're providing no analysis, no commentary, no anything on it.

What happened to the *other* seven studies they analysed? Left out because they disagreed with their pre-conclusion, by any chance?

If they manage to reduce the number of crashes, any kind - not even fatal - by even 8% along the GoSafe zone nearest my house, they'll have managed to invent a new form of mathematics. As there hasn't been any since the road was upgraded heavily.

In 1994.

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

And then there's Brake's page of links to research supporting the use of speed/safety cameras:

http://www.brake.org.uk/evidence-on-the-effectiveness-of-speed-cameras

Of course Brake are not just trolls, they're international road safety promotion trolls. The worst kind, perhaps, according to "everyone here"?

You're not getting this, are you.

YOU are the troll. Not the people you're linking to.

Del2005

Iwannahurl wrote: »

No reason there for not having speed/safety cameras. Such specious argument is a fallacy, known as "what aboutery".

These new safety cameras are costing us €65million over the next 4 years.

But I'd say 325* extra Gardaí patrolling our roads and catching cases of dangerous driving, of which excessive speed is only one part, would be better then paying someone to sit at the side of a road catching people exceeding a speed limit set by a local council using brown envelopes as guides.

*Using an average Garda salary of €50k

Iwannahurl

There are no reasons to doubt the effectiveness of speed cameras as a road safety measure.

That's Rune Elvik, a respected researcher with the world-renowned Institute of Transport Economics in Norway.

http://www.rss.org.uk/rssadmin/uploads/3952_Rune%20Elvik%20paper.pdf

But what does he know, compared to the intellectual giants on boards.ie?

Who needs research institutes, scientific journals and road safety authorities when you have the Boards Brains?

Iwannahurl

Del2005 wrote: »

These new safety cameras are costing us €65million over the next 4 years.

But I'd say 325* extra Gardaí patrolling our roads and catching cases of dangerous driving, of which excessive speed is only one part, would be better then paying someone to sit at the side of a road catching people exceeding a speed limit set by a local council using brown envelopes as guides.

*Using an average Garda salary of €50k

That assumes an opportunity cost.

It's not either/or.

The new privatised speed/safety cameras are to augment Garda traffic law enforcement efforts. So nothing to complain about there, then.

Iwannahurl

Del2005 wrote: »

...speed limit set by a local council using brown envelopes as guides.

Del2005

Iwannahurl wrote: »

That assumes an opportunity cost.

The contract for the speed cameras is €65million over 4 years. What opportunity cost is there? Would 300 Gardaí issuing fines not make more money and possibly make people fell safer if they start seeing Gardaí patrolling our streets?

It's not either/or.

We aren't getting an extra 300 Gardaí we are getting 60 vans that are going to sit at the side of the road enforcing 1 law not Gardaí enforcing ALL laws

In any case, the new privatised speed/safety cameras are to augment Garda traffic law enforcement efforts. So nothing to complain about there, then.

Your blind believe that 60 vans is better then 300 extra Gardaí patrolling our roads proves that you know absolutely nothing about road safety.

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'd say using the backs of envelopes as guides more than brown envelopes; seeing as with the exception of Louth no other council in the country can set speed limits properly. Kildare is either default-to-type or 'slap a 60 on it there', irregardless of the road condition, crash history, improvements, etc.

Iwannahurl

@Dell2005 You clearly don't understand what the term "opportunity cost" means.

Privatised speed/safety cameras and Garda traffic law enforcement are not mutually exclusive options, they are complementary.

The two operations together mean more enforcement, not less, which is what you appear to be arguing for.

I say 'appear to be' because it is really hard to comprehend what goes on inside the minds of speed camera sceptics who come out with the kind of guff routinely regurgitated on these hallowed pages...

L1011

The Guards are still operating their own speed camera checks in addition to the GoSafe ones. This means that del's figures on what Gardai could be provided are the relevant ones, not your ones claiming they are 'complementary'

The private speed camera funding provides speed cameras and nothing else. If the Guards were to cessate speed checks and do other road enforcement, you'd be correct. But they aren't.

Iwannahurl

MYOB wrote: »

The Guards are still operating their own speed camera checks in addition to the GoSafe ones. This means that del's figures on what Gardai could be provided are the relevant ones, not your ones claiming they are 'complementary'

The private speed camera funding provides speed cameras and nothing else. If the Guards were to cessate speed checks and do other road enforcement, you'd be correct. But they aren't.

Not a valid argument against speed/safety cameras.

MYOB wrote: »

If the Guards were to cessate speed checks and do other road enforcement, you'd be correct. But they aren't.

Dempo1

Its hard not to be skeptical when two of the countries smuggest TD's are behind the idea, Ahern and Dempsey. In addition how can anyone take this new approach seriously at an outrageous cost of €65m and already we are being told a crock of ****e about visibility and locations. I am also curious as to WTF the idea behind the traffic corps was, WTF are they going to be doing? although this said, I observed one very proficient in the use of Batons outside the dail today.

I have spotted a few of these vans in the most absurd locations where all that will be caught is a cold, other threads claim not to have seen any and on pretty long road trips. Come to think of it, since the nation was scared to death about the arrival of all these new mobile units, i have not see a Garda Traffic corps car on any motorway i have traveled on in the past two week. I fail to see why stationary camera's were not chosen. I also suspect there will be lots of district court appeals as no doubt this incompetent government will have managed to allow a few loop holes creep in.

Its also worth noting that English police forces have actually turned off 100's of speed cameras because of the cost of running them, instead they are setting up community based monitoring schemes. I suspect it wont be long before these new mobile units will end up in the same expensive storage facilities as out beloved E Voting machines.

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Not a valid argument against speed/safety cameras.

Its not an argument against them, its an argument about using SOLELY them when speed-related accidents are such a minor contributor to the overall crash figures.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If the Guards were to stop doing speed checks and let gosafe do all of them, your argument would be correct. They're not.

What part of that is so hard for you to understand? Should I get it written somewhere else so I can link you to it instead?

Iwannahurl

Dempo1 wrote: »

Its hard not to be skeptical when two of the countries smuggest TD's are behind the idea, Ahern and Dempsey. In addition how can anyone take this new approach seriously at an outrageous cost of €65m and already we are being told a crock of ****e about visibility and locations. I am also curious as to WTF the idea behind the traffic corps was, WTF are they going to be doing? although this said, I observed one very proficient in the use of Batons outside the dail today.

I have spotted a few of these vans in the most absurd locations where all that will be caught is a cold, other threads claim not to have seen any and on pretty long road trips. Come to think of it, since the nation was scared to death about the arrival of all these new mobile units, i have not see a Garda Traffic corps car on any motorway i have traveled on in the past two week. I fail to see why stationary camera's were not chosen. I also suspect there will be lots of district court appeals as no doubt this incompetent government will have managed to allow a few loop holes creep in.

Its also worth noting that English police forces have actually turned off 100's of speed cameras because of the cost of running them, instead they are setting up community based monitoring schemes. I suspect it wont be long before these new mobile units will end up in the same expensive storage facilities as out beloved E Voting machines.

No valid arguments against speed/safety cameras there.

I'm all in favour of community-based speed monitoring schemes though, in addition to fixed and mobile cameras.

Iwannahurl

MYOB wrote: »

If the Guards were to cessate speed checks...

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

No valid arguments against speed/safety cameras there.

How is the utterly pointless placement of cameras in places where there are no speeding risks or where they are unlikely to ever catch someone speeding not an argument against them? You even bolded that and claimed it wasn't valid.

You really do listen only to what you want to hear, don't you.

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

You asked this already. I answered this already.

Reading something you don't agree with is also not your strong point, I see.

Iwannahurl

MYOB wrote: »

If the Guards were to cessate speed checks...

Unfortunately I have to cessate this howbrigh debit and og two deb.

Nway...

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Unfortunately I have to cessate this howbrigh debit and og two deb.

Nway...

If you're reduced to picking at peoples English, you can tell your argument is dead. Returning to the subject is just necrophilia.

Cookie_Monster

:pac: This thread is epic

Any idea when (if) the first set of monthly data for the new cameras operation will be available?